Kamala Harris played almost no role in the key decision on crime made by California voters in the 2014 election, when they passed Proposition 47 and reduced penalties for many types of crime.
As state attorney general at the time, Harris said professional ethics forced her into a neutral role. It was a convenient stance allowing her to escape unscathed to the U.S. Senate two years later, then become vice president in 2020 and now emerge as the Democratic presidential nominee.
So don’t expect her to say much about this year’s Proposition 36, a measure backed by prosecutors who have long claimed Prop. 47 made life easier for criminals. Of course, don’t expect Harris to spend much time in California this fall, either, as her home state is regarded by all sides as immutably blue and all but absolutely certain to provide Harris with 54 electoral votes.
The main thrust of Prop. 47 was to reduce many property and drug crimes to misdemeanors from their previous status as felonies. That, say many, opened the door to rampant shoplifting and a spate of what appeared to be highly organized and coordinated “snatch-and-grab” burglaries.
Few of the criminals involved have paid much of a price for those crimes, almost all of which have been considered misdemeanors under Prop. 47, which set a $950 floor for the value of any theft to be treated as a felony. This has usually allowed even thieves who are caught to avoid jail time.
Ten years ago, Prop. 47 split the state’s dominant Democrats, with Harris doing little on it, while Gov. Gavin Newsom, then lieutenant governor, was a backer. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown opposed it even though the measure boosted his effort to cut down the prison population.
Then-Sen. Dianne Feinstein was also opposed, warning that “wholesale reclassification of many dangerous felonies as misdemeanors would put the people of California at continuous risk…”
Meanwhile, current Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, now in a tough reelection fight, signed the ballot argument favoring Prop. 47. He was then the DA in San Francisco.
Retailers are one business segment that definitely feels at risk because of Prop. 47 and its standard for felonies. Outfits like Target, Walgreen’s and Rite-Aid have closed stores because of rampant shoplifting. Big Box stores like Walmart, Target and Home Depot are among the chief financial backers of Prop. 36, which would roll back much of 47.
The new measure would make any third conviction for theft of any size a felony punishable by three years in prison. It would also make possession of fentanyl a felony and make any third drug possession conviction a “treatment-mandated felony,” depriving those convicted of any right to refuse treatment.
Newsom has been anything but neutral on Prop. 36, pushing through a 10-bill legislative package that aims to upstage and replace Prop. 36. So he won’t be endorsing 36. His successor several times removed as mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, has been a prime backer of the proposition.
Meanwhile, Harris took no position on Prop. 47, her campaign manager of the time saying attorneys general are like umpires, “the objective observer calling balls and strikes.” He said that role was thrust on Harris because the attorney general by law must write fair and objective ballot titles and summaries for all initiatives.And yet, previous attorneys general, like Republican Dan Lungren in the 1990s and Democrat Tom Lynch in the 1970s, took strong positions on ballot measures.
Harris will not be obliged to do much with Prop. 36, and might be wise to avoid it altogether as a party-splitting hazard, even though that would leave her open to criticism for ducking the issue.
Doing that never hurt her before, so there seems no large and obvious advantage to changing her tactics now.
Which would make it no surprise if the California resident even mentions the issue this fall, despite sharing the ballot with it.
Email Thomas Elias at [email protected].
